Judgment

S. NATARAJAN, J.:- While allowing this Appeal by Special Leave by the State of Kerala and restoring the conviction awarded to the respondent by the Sessions Judge under S. 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, we have, in our Judgment dated July 31, 1986, stated that the reasons will follow and accordingly we are giving the reasons for allowing the appeal against acquittal by the State.

2. The respondent-accused was charged under S. 302 of the Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Sulochana on the night of August 24, 1975, when she was sleeping in the house, by cutting her neck with a knife (M.O. 1). The occurrence was witnessed by the 13 year old daughter of the accused (P. W. 1) and a servant maid by name Omana (P. W. 2). The murder was committed because Sulochana was proving to be a stumbling block to the accused marrying P. W. 2 as his second wife and would not give her consent. The prosecution had examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 who had actually seen the commission of the murder and some of the neighbours viz. Karthyayani (P. W. 3), Mathew (P. W. 4) and Pavithran (P. W. 9) who had come out of their houses on hearing the commotion and seeing the accused washing his hands and dressing himself up and going to the house of one Peethambaran Master for seeking his advice regarding his future course of action. Within a few minutes P. W. 4 gave information through telephone to the Cochin Cusba Police Station about the murder of Sulochana. On receipt of the phone message P. W. 15 Sub-Inspector of Police came to the scene house and recorded a statement Exhibit P1 from PW. 1, P. W. 16, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took over the investigation of the case, arrested the accused, held inquest over the dead body of Sulochana and seized bloodstained knife M.O. 1 as well as the bloodstained clothes of the deceased and the frozen blood found on the flooring.

3. The accused admitted his presence as well as that of PWs. 1 and 2 in the house on the night of the murder but contended that he had not wanted to marry P. W. 2 or quarelled with his wife or cut her neck with a knife.

4. The Sessions Judge did not deem it safe to place reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 but accepted the evidence of P. W. 2 in full and the evidence of the neighbours and found the accused guilty under S. 302 of the Penal Code and awarded him death sentence as in his view the murder was very heinous.

5. Besides the reference under S. 366, Criminal P. C. by the Sessions Judge, the accused also preferred two appeals, one through counsel and one from the prison. The reference and the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Bench allowed the appeals and dismissed the reference and acquitted the accused of the charge of murder and set him at liberty. To challenge the correctness of the acquittal of the accused, the State has filed this Appeal.

6. We have been taken through the evidence of P. W. 2 and the neighbours P. Ws. 3, 4 and 9 and the doctors P. W. 8 and D. W. 1 as well as the relevant portions of the judgment of the Sessions Judge and the High Court by Mr. K. R. Nambirar, learned counsel for the appellant. D. W. 1 (Dr. Ravindranathan) has been examined by the accused to contend that the incised injury on Sulochanas neck could have been caused by the assailant only if he had held firm the head of the victim with one hand while inflicting the cut on the neck with a knife held in the other hand.

7. On a consideration of the evidence, we find (that) certain facts are not in controversy. The house where the murder was committed consists of a verandah in the front portion and three rooms in the rear situate east-west in a row. The only occupants of the house were the accused, his deceased wife, their 13 year old daughter P. W. 1 and the servant maid P. W. 2. Sulochana was of poor health and it would appear that she was also subjected to epileptic fits. On account of Sulochan